FDA’s Broadening Approval Authority Explained
Former FDAers Joshua Sharfstein and Peter Lurie say a recent agency draft guidance on benefit/risk assessment indicates that FDA “intends to embrace the broader view of its authority in certain circumstances, a promising alignment of the tools of regulation with the agency’s mission to protect public health.” Writing in a JAMA Viewpoint, the two say that under the broader approach, the agency considers the broader potential population effects, considering the risks and benefits of drug approval even for individuals who never received an appropriately prescribed dose.
The article says the expanded approach has its roots in the opioid epidemic, during which FDA encountered criticism that it fueled the crisis through overly permissive regulation of new prescription opioids. Sharfstein and Lurie say regulatory decisions were based on evaluations of the risks and benefits to people who received appropriate prescriptions of opioid products.
“As opioid-related deaths increased,” they write, “the view that the public health consequences of opioid addiction and diversion were secondary in FDA regulatory decision making became less tenable.”
The article says the new draft guidance goes beyond the confines of opioids. It discusses the guidance’s implications for antibiotics, vaccines, and tobacco and veterinary products.
“Making the most of this public health direction at FDA will require more details, appropriate expertise, and enhanced transparency,” Sharfstein and Lurie conclude. “FDA should determine when and how best to obtain and analyze relevant data. The agency should recruit staff with the training and experience to assess the population health implications of major policy decisions and should refer complicated questions for input from public advisory committees.”